MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900906759 · doi:10.1139/juvs-2018-0020

Do Americans differ in their willingness to ride in a driverless bus?

2018· article· en· W2900906759 on OpenAlex
Scott R. Winter, Stephen Rice, Rian Mehta, Nathan Walters, Matthew Pierce, Emily C. Anania, Mattie N. Milner, Natasha Rao

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSchool busOn boardPsychologyTransport engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to examine a person’s willingness to ride (WTR) in an autonomous bus. Across two studies, we presented participants with hypothetical scenarios about riding in a driverless city or inter-city bus. We manipulated who was onboard the bus (participant, romantic partner, or child), the location of the bus (seven different countries), and the type of driver (human or driverless). In Study 1, participants were less willing to ride a driverless city bus compared to one driven by a human driver. In Study 2, participants’ WTR scores were influenced by participant gender, the person on board, and location, with scores dropping dramatically when the bus was located outside of the USA, or when a child was on board. The current data suggest that Americans are not entirely ready for driverless buses, mainly when someone they care about is on board, or the bus is located outside the USA.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.256
Threshold uncertainty score0.512

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it